Why did Iowa go for "pro-war" candidates ?

[kentuck]

Although Kerry and Edwards have backed off somewhat from their original votes, Kerry moreso than Edwards, the people of Iowa did not vote for the purest "anti-war" candidates, Dean and Kucinich. Why? What are we to read from the huge majority that voted for the candidates that voted for the IWR? And Edwards was co-sponsor of the Patriot Bill? How do we explain that?

Is Iowa a reflection of the rest of America? Does the rest of America feel the same way about the war, which is nothing really? Can someone put this in perspective?

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. because most voters support the crusade. As do the candidates

They just feel that they will do a better job of running it than bush.

[Frederic Bastiat]

2. Running almost solely on anti-IWR cost Dean big time

Time the Doc came up with some new talking points. Kucinich's support for Edwards speaks of pragmatism and support for the "little guy" and little to do with the IWR.

[AP]

13. It seemed like Dean cared more about single issue ideologica purity than

actually caring about how people were experiencing Bush's kleptocracy.

You can't criticize the candidates really fighting the kleptocracy by criticizing them on the war. You have to put forward better ideas on fighting the kleptocracy, and Dean couldn't even be bothered to explain his tax plan to voters before the caucus.

[Nicholas_J]

24. Also

When Kucinich sued the White House last year to get an injuntion to prevent the President from going to war, he used the misnamed IWR ( the word "War appears no where in the resollution except in reference to the Gulf War) as the basis for preventing Bush from going to war on the grounds that the act required the president to have to have U.N. support for the war and exhaust all diplomatic means to get Saddam Hussein to comply with the U.N. resolutions enmtered into at the end of the Gulf War.

Which means Kucinich accpeted the fact that this resolution was not a blank check for war.

[WilliamPitt]

3. Perhaps

it is because the candidates are not as 'pro-war' as the simplified rhetoric of the ideological base of the party would like us to believe. Also, perhaps, because Iowa voters are not single-issue voters.

[Cocoa]

4. I saw a focus group on MSNBC

when Luntz asked them how many opposed the war, almost everyone immediately raised their hands.

But they voted in the same proportions as the results.

One guy articulated my position, that Bush would have gone to war anyway.

[MrBenchley]

5. I'm not sure you can characterize those as pro-war

since it's a sure bet that whatever Democrat emerges will be tagged as a "Saddam appeaser" by the blowhards of the media.

I think the message is that voters want a Democrat who embodies Democratic ideals. And Dean, except for his opposition to the war, is essentially a lite Republican.....

[HFishbine]

7. Yeah,

Health care, equality for all, fully funding education mandates -- that's very republican.

[AP]

15. begging Cato to like him, calling middle class "upper middle class" so

they don't ask for a tax break, saying that subconscious feelings, not law, is the final frontier of the civil rights struggle, not opening his corporate-friendly governor's correspondence to scrutiny, fighting for energy deregulation, privatizing utilities, an education plan which is basically just another taxpayer-subsidized loan (ie, profits for Wall St)...

Yes. Pretty conservative.

[Iverson]

33. you may have let the Cato out of the bag.

n/t

[HFishbine]

6. Make no mistake about Edwards

He hasn't backed off his vote a bit.
-----
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

[AP]

18. And it looks like Iowans liked that, and they liked the rest too:

EDWARDS: When somebody like Saddam Hussein presents a direct threat to the security of the American people and, in this case, the security of a region of the world that I think is critical.

MATTHEWS: A direct threat to us. What was it? Just to get that down. What is it? Knowing everything you know now, what was the direct threat this guy posed to us here in America?

EDWARDS: You didn’t get let me finish. There were two pieces to that. I said both a direct threat to us and a direct threat to a region of the world that is incredibly dangerous.

And I think that with Saddam Hussein, they’ve got nuclear capability, it would have changed the dynamic in that part of the world entirely. And as a result, would have created a threat to the American people. So that’s what I think the threat was.

MATTHEWS: Do you think he ever posed a direct threat...

EDWARDS: Can I say something? You sort of-implicit in that question was that the assumption that I believe that the Bush policy on preemptive strike is correct. I don’t.

I don’t think we need a new doctrine. I think that we can always act to protect the safety and security of the American people. And I have said repeatedly that Bush-President Bush’s approach to foreign policy in general is extraordinarily bad. Dangerous for the American people. He doesn’t work with others. He doesn’t build coalitions. We were promised...

MATTHEWS: Wait, wait.

EDWARDS: Let me finish. We were promised a coalition on the ground right now. And we were promised a plan for what would occur at this point in this campaign in Iraq. Well, neither of those things have occurred. And as a result, we’re seeing what’s happening to our young men and women.

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don’t think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don’t think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don’t misunderstand me.

MATTHEWS: Right.

EDWARDS: I stand behind it. But if I were president of the United States, instead of going to the United Nations as an afterthought, which is how this president did it-If I had been president of the United States, I would have been building the case over a long period of time, bringing an international pressure on Saddam Hussein.

I think the result of the way he built up to this war was he made it virtually impossible to get United Nations support.

[Emillereid]

19. OK Edwards' supporters --

can you explain this comment? I mean -- is he saying that since he didn't get misled, he believes that Iraq had/has nuclear weapons. I mean even Bushit doesn't claim that anymore.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. And going along with that, more anti-war voters went with Kerry

The Kerry campaign said the senator's success was due in part to his ability to draw considerable anti-war support from Dean, who had campaigned against the war in Iraq and said that he would give authority to NATO to handle the security and reconstruction of the nation.

The entrance poll showed that 75 percent of caucus-goers opposed the war in Iraq, but among those who disapproved of going to war, Kerry won 34 percent of the vote compared with Dean's 24 percent.
http://www.fox41.com/news/news_detail.asp?id=12448§ion=2

They don't give Edwards' number but it stands to reason it is lower. Kerry's position on the Iraq war, however often it may be mocked here at DU, is consistent and principled, and voters understand that. And they understand that John Kerry is a man who truly understands from his on bitter experience that war can only be an absolute last resort.

[HFishbine]

40. Among Iowa Voters Who Strongly Disapproved of the War

Among Iowa voters who strongly disapproved of the war, which was 50%, 34% went with Kerry, 29% Dean and 20% Edwards.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3762614&p1=0

[Mattforclark]

8. Because Clark and Graham were not there.

It was either Dean, Kucinich, or a pro-Iraq-war candidate, and we all know what happened.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. Because they understand that they are not "pro-war" candidates.

Even if many at DU do not want to understand that.

[West Coast Democrat]

10. Gephardt Supported the War Quite a Bit

but he didn't benefit at all. I really don't think it was the main issue.

[Jerseycoa]

11. This why, I think

Iowa voters see in Kerry and Edwards what they see in themselves: They were tricked by Bush. They couldn't hold IWR against them if they were honest with themselves, and they were. A second reason is they want to look forward to getting out of it and not backward to how we got into it. A third reason is, no matter that these people are against the war, they find it hard to vote for an anti-war candidate, because their own kids are IN the war. No matter what they feel about the war, Americans tend to be patriotic and it's a tough nut to crack. Dean is viewed as a draft-dodger (although he was not) and unpatriotic (which is why I suppose there was so much flag waving at his meltdown speech last night), but most important, he does not project leadership ability. With Edwards I think something else happened. He's shown himself to be some kind of genius stump speaker and he is easy, very easy to like. Excepting his base supporters, Howard Dean has always been the hardest person to like in the entire field: Iowa did not and America will not.

[DaisyUCSB]

12. Because they aren't pro-war. The only truely pro-war candidate was Joe

Lieberman, IE, pro-regime change.

The congressional Iraq resolution was an agreement that Saddam still hadn't complied with UN resolution 1441

Bush didn't need it to do regime change, but he did need it to ramp up inspections

Clearly, it was designed to weaken and devide the democratic party

[Emillereid]

14. The breakdown of the vote seems to indicate that those

who identified themselves as anti-war mainly went for Kerry as well as just about every other voter category. The thing that jumps out particularly is that Kerry and Edwards got most of the vote of those who 'made up their minds in the last week.' I think Dean and Gephardt hurt themselves with their negative campaigns against one another. Also it sounds as if Kerry was his most aggressive against Bush in the last couple of weeks with both he and Edwards borrowing heavily from Dean's themes. And even though I support Dean, I have to admit that he has overall performed poorly in the debates (especially the last one) and often does sound and look shrill and angry. We'll have to see how Dean does in NH -- those of us for whom the war and the direction of this country down the imperial highway are the foremost issues -- might have to adjust our loyalties to Clark. Obviously if Kerry is the nominee we'll vote for him -- he's hands down better than Bush. But his vote for the resolution giving Bush war powers was an egregious mistake. Not only do I see it as an incredible lapse in judgment, I also see it as a cowardly, expedient thing to do. I once saw Kerry interviewed on Hardball and he came off as so spineless and mealy mouthed about Iraq I felt embarrassed for him. Edwards and Kerry's latest conversion seem as insincere and opportunistic as their original votes. I mean why I like Dean and Kucinich is that they both stepped up to the plate and took positions that were very unpopular at the time -- and that took courage and real conviction.

[H2O Man]

16. because in times of war,

the public will almost always back someone they believe is "strong." I like Dean, and respect his supporters. However, he would not be able to beat Bush in November. Remember, 75% of the voters last night are "anti-war." But of even those, 57% did not vote for Dean. Kerry had the retired police officer come forward at an interesting time (yes, folks, I'm always curious when a republican comes forward at a strategic time) and it pumped Kerry's #'s.
Clark remains, in my opinion, the single best choice to defeat Bush in November. He is not perfect. The other candidates tend to have many good things to offer. Think: Kerry for Secretary of State; Edwards as VP or Att. General; Gephardt for Labor Secretary; Sharpton and Lieberman to work with Middle East; Dennis K to run human services; the possibilities with a united front are endless. It only requires one thing: that as a party, we put small differences behind us, and stand united!

[quaker bill]

17. Per the Wash. post entrance polling

The war simply was not the issue that drove the decisions of most voters there.

Dean led with folks who based their decision on the war. Had this been the dominant issue, Dean would have won. It was not.

Kerry led on issues like the economy, taxes, and national security. The only place he trailed Dean for support was on the war issue.

This was not a pro-war vote.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Actually what you are saying is the exact opposite of the polling

The Kerry campaign said the senator's success was due in part to his ability to draw considerable anti-war support from Dean, who had campaigned against the war in Iraq and said that he would give authority to NATO to handle the security and reconstruction of the nation.

The entrance poll showed that 75 percent of caucus-goers opposed the war in Iraq, but among those who disapproved of going to war, Kerry won 34 percent of the vote compared with Dean's 24 percent.
http://www.fox41.com/news/news_detail.asp?id=12448§ion=2

This is not a Wash post link, but it is the same entrance poll.

As you can see you are totally wrong when you say "Dean led with folks who based their decision on the war. "

[sangha]

29. IMO, you've overinterpreted the polls

The earlier point was that Iraq did not "drive the decision of most voters". While you do show that Iraq was an important issue, it was not responsible for the decision "most people" made. Even if EVERY Kerry vote was based on Iraq and Iraq alone, that would still not tell us anything about "most people" because "most people" for someone other than Kerry. Kerry got less than 50%.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. I'm not doing any interpretation at all.

The previous poster said

"Dean led with folks who based their decision on the war. "

That's the opposite of the poll result. It is simply factually wrong. No interpretation neccesary:

"The entrance poll showed that 75 percent of caucus-goers opposed the war in Iraq, but among those who disapproved of going to war, Kerry won 34 percent of the vote compared with Dean's 24 percent."
http://www.fox41.com/news/news_detail.asp?id=12448§ion=2


I am not arguing about whether Iraq did or did not "drive the decision of most voters". I am simply pointing out that the premises on which the poster made his argument are incorrect.

[sangha]

39. Ahh, I see now

My bad.

[theboss]

21. Most people I know are anti-war, but . . . .

Few are passionate about it. Most people feel like we went into war too fast, but are happy that Saddam is in custody. In other words, they disagree with Bush and the Democrats who back him, but it is not a deal-breaker.

The biggest problem with running as an anti-Iraq War candidate is a lot of people view that as an issue from the past. The War happened, now what? You can't undo the war so they want the candidate they feel can get them out of the mess Bush created. And it doesn't matter if they helped create the mess in the first place.

Basically, it's a confidence issue. A lot of voters still have more confidence that Kerry or Clark or even Edwards, despite his experience, can get us out of this diplomatic and military mess than they have confidence in Dean to do the same.

[Nicholas_J]

22. Perhaps

the finally decided that Deans interpretation of what they did did not give a blank check for war, and accepted the other candidates and the actual nature of the act itself which was deigned to make war the last option in a long set of options that required peaceful and diplomatic means of dealing with Iraq.

Means that the people of Iowa, who largely opposed the war do not consider the vote for the resolution in Octiber a vote for war.

[goodhue]

23. don't think

they really campaigned as pro-war and it was not really an issue.

They criticized bush for not resolving conflict by working with UN.
Sure they voted for the resolution. But otherwise their rhetoric was not that different than Dean's of late. Dean had stopped talking about the war until about two weeks ago when he suddenly realized he was slipping and started hammering about how he had opposed it.

But the real issue is what to do NOW with the occupation!!!
Dean was no different than Kerry and Edwards in that regard,
and in fact Kerry and Edwards had exit strategies that were not too disimilar from DK's 10-point plan and emphasized bringing the UN in.

But not quite Kucinich, who reasonably calls for the UN in, US out.
If Dean had followed DK's lead, he would have been much better positioned as an anti-war candidate and maybe he could have made an issue out of it. But he didn't and the war was not an issue.

http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/

[Zero Division]

25. The IWR vote was not as important...

as the judgement of whether or not Kerry or Edwards would have gotten the United States into a war with Iraq if they had been president at the time. Don't confuse that with support of Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq. At the caucus I participated in the Edwards supporter who was trying to capture non-viables and undecideds was making that point exactly. There is more than one shade of opposition to the Iraq War both amongst the general public and liberals and Democrats.

I think perceived electability may have been the most important deciding factor in last night's Iowa caucuses (which is a good explanation for why Gephardt's support imploded in Iowa, where he was expected to do very well), and those who opposed the war were content with someone who they thought would not have gotten us into the mess in the first place.

[sandnsea]

26. Because the issue has been muddied

And it's been politicized and people know it and find it offensive. So they're going for who they can trust overall and Kerry and Edwards gained their trust.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. I don't think the war was the biggest issue on people's minds

As always, they're more into pocketbook issues, and they won't support candidates who harp on issues that they see as irrelevant.

Howard Dean emphasized his anti-war stance, which is not the top issue on people's minds. They're more interested in the economy, and if you're going to appeal to people's anti-war feelings, you need to connect it to the economy.

Back during the Reagan administration, there was a short-lived precursor to the Green Party called the Citizens' Party. It decided to try to win local elections first (good idea) but had no idea how to go about it. When I saw the platform of their candidate for Minneapolis city council, I knew they were doomed. They advocated a nuclear freeze, no intervention in Central America, national health care, and a bunch of other stuff that I agreed with.

Unfortunately, none of these issues were in any sense under the jurisdiction of the Mpls city council, and more important from an electoral point of view, none of them were issues that the average voter wants the city council to deal with.

In short, they had no position on snow removal, street repairs, parks, zoning, or any of the other matters that city councils actually deal with.

This is not to say that Dean or another peace candidate could not make voters care about the war, but he'd better have an appealing domestic agenda to go with it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

30. Because the actual time has passed to be pro or anti war as regards Iraq

What there is to do now is to create a workable exit and repair our image.

Anger is focusing on the past, not the future.

[kentuck]

32. Interesting comment, nsma...

The time has passed to be pro or anti war...?

I think you may be correct, from a political standpoint. We are there. People are dying. We need a way to save lives and get out with an honorable exit and be able to repair our image around the world. That is the new challenge. All else is focusing on the past...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. Exactly. The only people guaranteed to go with Dean on that issue

are those that still can't accept that it happened. I find that war to have been wrong, I was against it, I protested against it, I am still against it, but I ACCEPT that the reality is WE ARE THERE and we won't be getting out and leaving a peaceful Iraq without international supportand a feasible plan to insure the security of the Iraqi people.

I think people see in Kerry someone that will not leave a Pol Pot in his wake upon withdrawal and that is of paramount importance.

Finally, Kerry's ads in Iowa were VERY forward thinking in their approach and quite moving.

[funkyflathead]

31. Because the sheeple like illegal wars

They are pro-war in that they voted to authorize it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. Sounds like you are well on your way towards building a winning coalition

to beat Bush.


NOT!

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

35. because the media was so busy attacking dean's personality 'flaws'

that they neglected to mention how kerry and edwards actually voted for the war

[adamrsilva]

36. Because 25% of them support the war

And the rest didn't care who voted for what.

[PretzelWarrior]

41. they weren't "pro-war". they were triangulated into voting for IWR...

and I can tell you the ones who say they WOULDN'T have voted for it are history. Bush lied about the threat. Cheney lied about the threat. Intelligence reports were shaded to exaggerate the threat. Frankly, I would have thought my senator was loco en cabeza if he didn't vote for the authorization to use force. The administration forced the issue around the midterms and it worked. They aren't dummies. They are evil, but they aren't dumb. So what? Their strategy worked. Did Kerry go to pro-war rallies? Did Kerry send troops to Iraq? NOOOOOO!!!!!!!! He gave the president authorization based on certain trigger points involving consultations with congress which never happened.

Kerry and Edwards are adopting a middle-road position that most Americans will agree with and understand. Lieberman is a Hawk. He's out. Kucinich is unabashed dove. He's out. You need a centrist. Dean needs to reach for the center or he won't win anything.